On 31. 3. 2013. at 20:52, duda said:

a što to misliš ?mnogi veliki fizičari su pred kraj života zaglavili u metafiziku ili religijunije to slučajno, tj, nemoguće da su baš svi oni fijuknuli

Da, baš zbog metafizike i religije, zbog ostrašćenosti prema bombardovanju (to donekle mogu da razumem)...S druge strane, koliko sam na brzinu video, zadržao je stari naučni stil, zbog kog sam mu verovao kad nešto napiše.Na primer tekst (intervju) o lekovitom bilju je onakav kakav sam očekivao od njega. Ali sada sam u nedoumici, da li uzeti za ozbiljno ono što sam kod njega pročitao o osiromašenom uranijumu - kaže da postoje dve vrste, čist i prljav (ovaj drugi su nam navodno uvalili). Da li to govori onaj stari analitični fizičar ili ovaj donekle ostrašćen čovek? Bavi se i GMO hranom, poziva se na neke rekombinovane viruse, da li poverovati u to kao što verujem biolozima što su pisali ovde na ppp, da li su izvori na koje se poziva šarlatani ili ne?

  On 31. 3. 2013. at 21:08, Frile said:

Ali sada sam u nedoumici, da li uzeti za ozbiljno ono što sam kod njega pročitao o osiromašenom uranijumu - kaže da postoje dve vrste, čist i prljav (ovaj drugi su nam navodno uvalili).

Ne znam zasto si toliko sumnjicav prema VA, i druge muci isto pitanje. "Prljav" DU je koliko vidim po netu onaj koji u sebi ima tragove plutonijama. Ne bih na osnovu price o tome zakljucio da je VA fijuknuo. Jel imas nesto drugo?

Reveal hidden contents

The Lancet Oncology, Volume 2, Issue 2, Page 65, February 2001Next Article>doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00208-4Cite or Link Using DOI Mixed messages about depleted uraniumThe Lancet Oncology Ten years ago this month the Gulf War was raging. Between January 17 and February 27 1991, the Allied forces bombarded southern Iraq and Kuwait with hundreds of thousands of rounds of depleted uranium (DU) shells. DU is used in bullets and shells because of its hardness and penetrating power. When DU ammunition hits its target, it explodes and burns, forming a chemically toxic and radioactive dust. The uranium oxide compounds in this dust can enter the body by ingestion and inhalation, or through wounds caused by shrapnel. In the Bosnian conflict (1992—95), American aircraft used 10 800 shells containing DU, and during the 1999 Kosovo campaign 31 000 rounds were fired. The Gulf War may have been a triumph against Saddam Hussein, but increased numbers of cases of cancer among war veterans and Iraqi civilians have been alleged ever since, and have been linked to the use of DU. Is a similar story going to unfold for the Balkan conflict over the next few years? The numerous articles in the newspapers in recent weeks seem to suggest so.Attention has focused almost exclusively on 17 cases of NATO servicemen who have developed leukaemia since serving in the Balkan war. All cases of leukaemia are distressing, but is this figure really in excess of the number of cases that would normally have been expected to develop in the general population? Of about 150 000 soldiers who served in Kosovo, 17 have been diagnosed with leukaemia — roughly 10 cases per 100 000 population. In the UK, the normal incidence rate of leukaemia in adult men is also about 10 per 100 000 population. Unfortunately, most of the reports fail to point out that it is very rare for cancer to develop within 2 years of exposure to this type of carcinogen. In seeking to show that DU is not carcinogenic, the UK Ministry of Defence quoted a study by the Department of Veteran Affairs, Baltimore, USA, which is following 33 American veterans, all of whom were exposed to DU, have shrapnel in their bodies, and have traces of uranium in their urine. After 2 years of follow up, none of the men in this study have developed cancer. Surely the word ‘yet’ has been missed off the end of this statement.While western reporting has concentrated on the possible effects on war veterans, very little attention has been paid to the possible risks to the civilian populations of Iraq and the Balkans, although the danger to them is much greater. The NATO military personnel have all gone home; they do not have to live near burnt-out tanks and are not continually exposed to contamination in the air and water around them. The main isotope in DU, U238, has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, so this problem is not going to go away soon. The Bosnian Health Minister said recently that cases of leukaemia in Bosnia have doubled in the last 2 years. In November 2000, a UN Environment Programme task force inspected 11 of the 112 known targets of ordnance containing DU and found evidence of contamination in eight of these. Final analysis of soil, water and vegetation samples from the inspected areas will be available in early March.We need to know more about this sort of radiation exposure. Radiotherapy-induced leukaemia does develop after a latency of only 2—3 years, but this is a high-dose, acute exposure. Evidence from Hiroshima showed the latency of leukaemia development to be an average of 10—15 years, but again the people were exposed to acute, high-radiation doses. In contrast, DU emits low-dose alpha-particle radiation over a long period of time. We should have accurate, comprehensive 10-year follow-up information from the Gulf War veterans and Iraqi civilians, but where is it? The newspapers tell the stories of particular individuals, which has greater emotional impact and makes harrowing reading, but does not provide definitive proof of cause and effect.One problem is that the studies so far have been poorly planned and on a small scale. Well-designed, large-scale, efficiently coordinated studies monitoring large numbers of exposed veterans and civilians are needed. With hindsight, as the safety of DU was in question before its use in military campaigns, the most scientific approach would have been to monitor servicemen from baseline, during combat, and for many years post-war. Politicians, scientists, and the military from all the countries involved need to cooperate. This may seem unrealistic, but would be of benefit to everybody in the long term.Why did it take so long for NATO to reveal where DU had been used? It would have done their public image and credibility good to have been open from the start — especially since it was fairly obvious that they would have to give in eventually. A Pentagon document from 1993 warned that ‘when soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust they incur a potential increase in cancer risk’, yet now they are publicly denying any health risk at all. The message is not consistent — is it any surprise that the reassurances fall on sceptical ears?

problem je u tome sto je kod nas "osiromasen uranijum" postao alibi za ruinirano zdravstvo, losu hranu, 12-casovno radno vreme bez vikenda i godisnjih odmora, stres i siromastvo.ti citiras tekst koji govori o neposrednoj kontaminaciji DU-om. ovde postoji tendencija medju laicima da se bukvalno svaki slucaj raka povezuje sa osiromasenim uranijumom, a kada kazes da je raka bilo i pre 1999. godine ljudi te belo gledaju (pre 1999. rak je povezivan uglavnom sa Cernobilom, pusenje dve pakle na dan nema veze sa time, vec si dobio rak od jedne cinije zelene salate koju si pojeo 1986. godine).cak i ljudi koje smatramo strucnjacima skloni su uzasnom preterivanju kada je u pitanju osiromaseni uranijum i potreban je oprez kada se cita o tome.

Edited April 1, 201312 yr by Marko M. Dabovic

bez da ulazim u raspravu o temi kauzalnog odnosa osiromasen uranijum-povecan broj obolelih od karcinoma (jer nemam pojma o tom) jel nije i pre 1999 bilo siromastvo, stres, losa zdravstvena kultura i zastita?

  On 1. 4. 2013. at 7:42, InvisibleLight said:

bez da ulazim u raspravu o temi kauzalnog odnosa osiromasen uranijum-povecan broj obolelih od karcinoma (jer nemam pojma o tom) jel nije i pre 1999 bilo siromastvo, stres, losa zdravstvena kultura i zastita?

bilo, kako ne, ali je onda dosao uranijum kojim se sve to moze objasniti bez kritike establismenta. doso uranijum, pobio nas, niko nije kriv osim NATO.inace koliko znam, kod nas ne postoje istrazivanja o ovom kauzalnom odnosu DU i raka, dok u svetu nema jasnih dokaza da izlaganje DU, osim u neposrednoj blizini, povecava incidencu raka. ima u Iraku nekih anegdotskih dokaza, ali nema konkluzivnih studija.

^^Jeste, ali je trajalo 7-8 godina unazad, a ne 20 i kusur, kao sada

Edited April 1, 201312 yr by Milogled Bluff

Pitam se mogalo li bi gajger da proveri postoji li nesto?Kako me ide rendgen ima da svetlim u mraku, pa ako se jos malo doda ne bi stetilo.Ima analiza od Cernobila na jednom malom uzorku i bilo je uticaja na povecani broj obolelih od kancera.Sad stres i jos ako je bilo nesto pride...

kapiram..ono sto je jedino izvesno ibrojivo je da je broj obolelih zaista uvisestrucena da li postoje jasni dokazi - istrazivanja da je u nekim zemljama (koje nisu bombardovane) isto tako pauperzacija, stres i ostalo dovelo do visestrukog broja obolelih?pri tom imam u vidu da su se u velikim fabrikama u doba sfrj redovno odvijali sistematski pregledi i nije bilo toliko ni tih rano-otkrivenih slucajevane kazem ovo da pobijem vase rezone, samo razmisljam..

pre neki dan je bio tekst na b92 o nekakvom latentnom periodu za malignitete tipa limfomi i leukemija koji je nekih 10god od izlaganja i koji se, je li, zavrsio 2008/9, i neki strucnjak(?) je rekao da je do 2008 stopa povecavanja (kakvog povecavanja?) ovih oboljenja kod nas bila 2%, a onda 6%, pa poslednjih godina 10% - je l video neko taj clanak i jel to sto on prica ima nekog smilsa (i tacnosti)?

  On 1. 4. 2013. at 6:54, Indy said:

Ne znam zasto si toliko sumnjicav prema VA, i druge muci isto pitanje. "Prljav" DU je koliko vidim po netu onaj koji u sebi ima tragove plutonijama. Ne bih na osnovu price o tome zakljucio da je VA fijuknuo. Jel imas nesto drugo?

Čini mi se da se ne razmumemo. Nemam toliki problem sa uranijumom. Ajdačić je jedan od ljudi koje bih prve saslušao i poverovao im kad se priča o poreklu i prljavosti obogaćenog uranijuma (moguća povezanost sa navodnim porastom obolelih od raka je druga priča).Moj mali problem sa Ajdačićem je veza sa njegova sadašnja veza sa religijom i ostrašćenost, kao što sam napisao u odgovoru Dudi. Nisam siguran da mu mogu kao ranije slepo verovati kad priča o nauci.On sada izgleda piše i o tome da je HAARP uticao na promenu klime 1999, daje prostor pseudo-naučnicima koji se bave Teslinim "ne-hercijanskim talasima"...

çç

Edited April 1, 201312 yr by InvisibleLight

iskustva iz par lokalnih domova zdravlja "iz prve ruke" su da je uzasno povecan broj obollelih od raka

jel' postoje neke brojke, tabele, raspodele za to 'uzasno povecan', a da ima se moze verovati, tj. da nemaju politicku zaledjinu?

jel' vam poznat slučaj ''hadžići'' 'ne znam tačne podatke, ali radi se o nekom velikom procentuljudi umirali ko pokošeni

  On 1. 4. 2013. at 8:10, estel said:

jel' postoje neke brojke, tabele, raspodele za to 'uzasno povecan', a da ima se moze verovati, tj. da nemaju politicku zaledjinu?

imas koliko hocesako verujes novinarima i nekim organizacijamanpr

  Quote

Stopa obolelih od malignih oboljenja na Kosovu i Metohiji u poslednjoj deceniji uvećana je za 200 procenata, podaci su Nevladine organizacije Milosrdni anđeo iz Kosovske Mitrovice.

al ajde..jeste 'anegdotska' metoda, a stvarno direktni zivi smo svedoci o jako velikom bnroju i starijih i mladjih ljudi u svojim okolinama koji obljevajuopet, izostaje jedan ozbiljan naucni pristup,studija i zakljucak o uzrocima i udelima raznih uzroka..al nesto lebdi u vazduhueto na zalost znam za podatak o jednom mestu u vojvodini, izvor - hematolosko odeljenje bolnice u novom sadu o nenormalno uvecanom broju obolelih od leukemije..zaboravih brojku al izvor je bolnica, lekar

Edited April 1, 201312 yr by InvisibleLight